Anti-Personnel Depth Charge Guns?

Delta Force

Banned
The Soviet Union developed a series of pistols and rifles designed to be fired underwater to equip their anti-frogman units. However, the weapons are ineffective when fired outside of water, so they require trained divers firing underwater to be useful. Could some kind of anti-personnel depth charge gun have been developed instead, giving watchmen an easy and effective weapon they can use to defend ships? Can a depth charge gun be made which can incapacitate enemy frogmen without damaging boats, ships, and submarines?
 
I know that the Australians put spigot mortars as well as a depth charge thrower on some chop shop conversions of tanks in the Far East for use against dug in Japanese positions. But a depth charge gun? I guess a grenade would be just fine its a big enough bang and concussive blast under water that you'd not want one going off anywhere near you if you was a frogman.
 
They exist. The Soviet/Russian DP-64 and DP-65, for example, fire miniature depth-bombs.

While the original APS rifle was inaccurate out of water, it's successors (the ASM-DT dual ammunition and ADS rifles) are highly capable in both modes. Likewise supercav ammunition is available in most common small arms and HMG/auto-cannon calibres.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Couldn't you just drop a standard depth charge and kill every frogman within a mile or so?

Depth charges are designed to damage submarines, so they would probably damage the boats, ships, and submarines being defended if they exploded too close. A smaller depth charge gun would reduce that risk.
 
The primary effect of most hand grenades is shrapnel, which would be ineffective under water.
True, but they have a small explosive charge inside - and underwater you only need a very little charge to deal with frogmen over a surprisingly wide area. They're also readily available and highly portable.
 
Depth charges are designed to damage submarines, so they would probably damage the boats, ships, and submarines being defended if they exploded too close. A smaller depth charge gun would reduce that risk.

If depth charges were likely to damage ships they couldn't be used...
 
If depth charges were likely to damage ships they couldn't be used...

Oh, they can. A bit of shock damage from a depth charge is vastly preferable to getting a spread of torpedoes in the side, no matter if it takes a turbine offline or something. But depth charges are certainly capable of sinking ships that are too close to them as well. One tactic used in WW2 by British MGBs was to race in close, drop a pair of depth charges set for minimum depth next to their target, and hope they were fast enough to be out of danger when they went off. All going well the target would get wrecked - a broken keel was one of the possible outcomes. So you would want to be careful about how big a charge you used for defending against swimmers.
 
Another thing with a grenade type weapon is that the pressure wave might just kill/disable more than a simple gun.
 
USN ships had high explosive/no fragment grenades on board.
Of course, frigates, destroyers and cruisers could always just turn on the sonar for a similar effect.
 
USN ships had high explosive/no fragment grenades on board.
Of course, frigates, destroyers and cruisers could always just turn on the sonar for a similar effect.
which is probably why the usa developed those insanely highpowered sonars, to kill /(more likely) injure the onboard personnel of a sub, sonar would jusy injure them, rendering them deaf.
and i think it might be highly unwise, since i have my doubt of the legality under the hague/geneva conventions ( no mutilating weapons allowed)
 

Driftless

Donor
What about a sonic weapon? Sonar pings apparently severely impair whales and other sea going mammals. I would think they might be particularly effective in shallower water where the sound waves have something to bounce off.

*edit* Ninja'ed
 
Last edited:
which is probably why the usa developed those insanely highpowered sonars, to kill /(more likely) injure the onboard personnel of a sub, sonar would jusy injure them, rendering them deaf.
and i think it might be highly unwise, since i have my doubt of the legality under the hague/geneva conventions ( no mutilating weapons allowed)

A sonar loud enough to injure a submarine crew would injure the crew of the destroyer worse. No, Navy sonars aren't that loud. But they are loud enough to severely injure divers, and animals with sensitive hearing like whales and dolphins.
 
depends on how directional it is.
I did see that the sonar could permanently harm the hearing on sea mammal at a considerable distance.

some searching shows, that some of the us navy sonars uses beams of sound, each of them projecting a staggering 215 decibels
 
Basically we were trained to drop hand grenades of a boat. Hi-tech stuff..:)
I suppose you could use a rifle grenade, anything else is overkill against a diver.

For a higher-tech solution, firing up the main sonar really doesn't do anyone in the water nearby any good at all..
The main sonar on a frigate is a lot more powerful than most people realise. Their power limit is the point at which they boil the water around themselves.
 
Top